Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skin friction lines

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skin friction lines

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Overly technical, nothing but a dicdef. Does not seem expandable. No sources found. Deprodded for no reason by an editor who seems to get his jollies by deprodding me without ever explaining. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nominator took all of 30 seconds to make this nomination as part of a cookie-cutter spree. The nomination seems to be personal in nature and so violates WP:SK 2b "nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption". For those actually interested in the topic, there's a good NASA paper, Topology of Three-Dimensional Separated Flows, which discusses skin friction lines in detail and references the papers of other researchers. Warden (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these seem to have an impressive pedigree. A quick search find this paper [1] which mentions that they were studied back in 1962, probably much earlier Legendre in 1956?. Numerous papers mention them and there seem to be some important mathematical questions on limiting behaviour. There could be a deep article here and as being lines on the surface of an object rather than of the air surrounding and object a merge to Streamlines, streaklines, and pathlines doesn't seem appropriate.--Salix (talk): 22:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and close – Per WP:NRVE and because this topic passes WP:GNG. Examples: [2], [3], [4], [5]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click Google books and you'll find ample results proving this is a real thing, and it is important for this field. The nominator has been asked before to stop nomination sprees. Deletion rational was copy and pasted to 11 related articles. Dream Focus 14:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep, per everyone. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The nomination itself does not appear to be rational or coherent. Perhaps nominator should consider withdrawing the nomination? It is a waste of my time to even review these kinds of things, this is rather disruptive behaviour. linas (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:NPASR WP:SK#2 Disparaging nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Overly technical" is not a reason to delete. Also, any editor can "de-prod" for any reason (or no reason) as they see fit. They also can de-prod for any reason and not tell anyone. So that's not a reason to delete either. Is the essay WP:SOURGRAPES about to be written?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment too late: it's already been written at WP:GRAPES.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up "Deprodded for no reason by an editor who seems to get his jollies by deprodding me without ever explaining" -- actually, the contesting editor did indeed provide a reason on the articles talk page, and it appears to be well before this AFD was created.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and WP:TROUT to the nom. Bad-faith nomination, with hundreds of reliable sources existing. -- 202.124.74.22 (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep nomination does not appear to be about the article itself as about the annoying deprodding editor. Eau (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.